Muhamed Mustaque, J.
Challenging the concurrent finding under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the landlord filed this Rent Control Revision. The landlord filed the Rent Control Petition for evicting the tenants on the ground under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. Though eviction was ordered under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, it was subject to a condition of depositing rent arrears within one month.
2. The landlord, who is alleged to be a returnee from Gulf, wants to run a tailoring shop in the tenanted premises. It is alleged by him that he has no vacant building available anywhere near the petition schedule building or its vicinity to run the proposed business. The tenants contended that the petitioner has so many vacant rooms in his possession in the same building. In the affidavit filed by the landlord in lieu of chief examination also, he reiterated his pleading that he has no vacant building anywhere near the petition schedule building. It has come out in cross examination that the landlord is having vacant possession of the building. The Rent Control Court noted that out of the fourteen rooms belonged to the petitioner/landlord, ten rooms are vacant. The landlord failed to state specific reasons for non-occupation of the same. Therefore, it is hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
3. The Appellate Authority, who also having occasion to appreciate the evidence, found that the landlord has vacant possession of four rooms in the ground floor with shutter facility. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the courts below that vacant rooms are available to the landlord. However, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord contended that both the courts below were erred in finding against him under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The counsel submits that those rooms have become vacant subsequent to the filing of the Rent Control Petition and, therefore, it was not incumbent upon the landlord to show special reasons for non-occupation of the above rooms. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the finding rendered by the courts below under the first proviso to Section 11(3) is erroneous and is liable to be interfered with by invoking powers under Section 20 of the Act.
4. It is found by the courts below concurrently that the landlord is having vacant possession of several rooms. The question whether those rooms became vacant prior to the filing of the Rent Control Petition or subsequent to the filing of the Rent Control Petition are all within the knowledge of the landlord. If the rooms are vacant prior to the filing of the Rent Control Petition certainly the landlord had to state special reasons for non- occupation of the said rooms, in the Rent Control Petition. If the buildings became vacant subsequent to the filing of the Rent Control Petition and before the landlord was examined before the Rent Control Court, necessarily the landlord when entered in the box is expected to state reasons for non-occupation of the same before Court. However, instead of explaining for non-occupation of those rooms, the landlord went for denying the fact that he has vacant possession of the buildings, in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination. It is only in cross examination, he admitted that he has vacant possession of the rooms. It has come out in evidence that vacant rooms in the ground floor of the same building are available and in the possession of the landlord. Assuming that those rooms became vacant subsequent to the filing of the Rent Control Petition, it was incumbent upon the landlord to explain before the Rent Control Court, at least in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, the reasons for non-occupation of the said rooms, to establish his bona fides. In such circumstances, it is expected from the landlord to state all the facts that may be required to establish his bona fides. When vacant rooms in the same building are admittedly in possession of the landlord and those facts are being suppressed before Court, it would at least reflect upon his bona fides. We have already noted that whether those rooms became vacant prior to the filing of the Rent Control Petition or subsequent to the filing of the Rent Control Petition are all within the knowledge of the landlord. He having not stated when those rooms became vacant, the Court has to presume that those rooms have become vacant prior to filing the Rent Control Petition. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by the courts below. We do not see any merit in the Rent Control Revision. Therefore, we are not inclined to admit the Rent Control Revision.
Accordingly, we dismiss the Rent Control Revision in limine.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge (A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE) Judge ahz/